Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CGY] F Sven Baertschi to Vancouver for 2015 2nd round pick - Part II

[Addison Rae]

I don't see the elhers comp at all, one guys was really driving the bus, while Sven was great but part of a larger machine.

as for a 2nd rounder having a 30% chance of even playign 50 games in the NHL, it looks like a very safe bet that 40% (12 of 30) 2nd rounders in Sven's draft year are going to hit that mark.

the year before 2010 it was 8, so far with maybe 1 or 2 more to join that group
2009 it was 14 of 30

Wow that margin of error looks like more than my Sedin point prediction.

I won't add any comment to it, as it speaks for itself.

did you even watch Sven in junior? He absoloutely drove the bus, he was seen as arguably the best player in the CHL at one point. Rattie's PPG went down when Sven was out of the lineup, you're mad if you don't think Sven was driving the bus, absolutely mad.

As for the statistics I assume I read something on here about that, if not whatever I'll admit to my mistake, something you should really try. Point still stands I'd take Sven over a 2nd any day of the week. Also please don't try and mention the Sedins your opinion on them is laughable, and you're proven wrong so many times, I've never see anyone move goalposts as much as you.

 

[Lundface*]

So I wanted to revisit the success rates of mid-range 2nd rounders to see just what the 'risk' is in the Baertschi trade. Figured the easiest way to do this is go back through recent drafts and look at the quality of players picked in the range that the Vancouver pick is likely to be this year. Given that we are hovering around the 18-20 mark, I went with picks between #40 (10 before ours) and #60 (10 after ours). I also looked at the drafts between 2004 and 2009. I stopped at 2003 since that is a well known 'abberation' draft in terms of the unusual quality and depth, which is not likely to be seen in 2015. I also stopped at 2009 since most 2nd rounders taken in 2010 or later are still too young to have really established themselves. I also focused forwards only, since it makes the comparison to Baertschi a bit easier.

So from 2004-2009 there were 73 forwards drafted in that range. I tallied up the players, applied some subjective ratings to their 'quality', and came up with the following odds:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of drafting a 'Star' Player (major award winner, All Star, etc):

0/73 (0.00%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Top Line' Player (60+ points or 25+ goals more than one time, or seem likely to hit these levels based on play so far):

4/73 (5.5%)
Includes: Paul Statsny (44), Milan Lucic (50), Derek Stepan (51), Tomas Tatar (60)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Top 6' Player (40+ points or 20+ goals more than one time)

3/73 (4.1%)
Includes Artem Anisimov (54), Brandon Dubinsky (60), and David Booth (53)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Tweener/Bottom 6' Player (regular NHL career for at least 3 seasons)

11/73 (15.1%)
Includes Mason Raymond, Nikolay Kulemin, Blake Comeau, Brandon Pirri,
Shawn Matthais, Bryan Bickell, Justin Abdelkader, Nick Spaling, Jimmy Hayes, Carl Soderberg, and Guillaume Latendresse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering that the guys listed as 'Tweener/Bottom 6' players are largely utility, role, or replacement level players, I would classify the harm of missing out on drafting one of them as negligible.

If we focus on the players that it would actually 'hurt' to miss out on, then we are talking about 7 forwards out of 73 picks or a 9.6% rate. In other words, there is roughly a 9.6% chance that our 2015 2nd round pick could turn into a player that could be a regular top 6 forward and score at least two seasons of 20+ goals or 40+ points. The kind of player that if Calgary drafts with our pick, I could easily say "damn, that one hurts".

So when we look at the pedigree and history of Baertschi, do we see a player who has less than a 10% chance to become an equivalent type of player? Obviously it will depend on your view of Baertschi, including his strengths and flaws as well as the reasons Calgary was willing to give him up for a 2nd. For me personally, I feel that there is probably a better than 10% chance that he can still become a decent top 6 forward using the same criteria I used for the draft picks. Thus for me it seems like a good trade with a reasonable chance of it outperforming the cost.

I know you wasted a lot of time doing this but there are a couple of problems.

Mason Raymond has scored more than 50 in a season.

Kulemin also has 30 goals in a season.

Soderberg had 48 points In 73 games last season. Given the subjective cutoff, id add him to the top 6 list.

I'm on my phone just glancing but these were fairly obvious ones.

Also Simmonds was a 2nd round pick when taken. It was an added second rounder, buy I'd still count him.

 

[Lundface*]

I know you wasted a lot of time doing this but there are a couple of problems.

Mason Raymond has scored more than 50 in a season.

Kulemin also has 30 goals in a season.

Soderberg had 48 points In 73 games last season. Given the subjective cutoff, id add him to the top 6 list.

I'm on my phone just glancing but these were fairly obvious ones.

Also Simmonds was a 2nd round pick when taken. It was an added second rounder, buy I'd still count him.

Yikes messed that up. Raymond had two seasons over 40...Soderberg will most likely eclipse 40 this season, Simmonds should count as well.

Kulemin was close at 36 a second season. Hard to say a 30 goal 50+ season qualifies you as topping out as a tweener.

 

[CanaFan]

I know you wasted a lot of time doing this but there are a couple of problems.

Mason Raymond has scored more than 50 in a season.

Kulemin also has 30 goals in a season.

Soderberg had 48 points In 73 games last season. Given the subjective cutoff, id add him to the top 6 list.

I'm on my phone just glancing but these were fairly obvious ones.

Also Simmonds was a 2nd round pick when taken. It was an added second rounder, buy I'd still count him.

Hence why I stated "more than once". You can argue the criteria if you like but I don't see much value in a player who can't replicate a good season at least once. If you consider losing the chance to draft a Raymond-like player to be a significant risk then by all means adjust the %'s accordingly.

Simmonds was a legit miss b/c I set the range at 40-60 and edited the data accordingly. If the exercise is to remain objective (ie not simply adding a player after discovering he was cut off) then he shouldn't be included. But again add him if you like, along with the other 5 #61 picks that busted. The odds will bump up only slightly anyway.

Point is, no superstars will likely be missed, and a roughly 10-11% chance that a real good player a la Statsny, Lucic, Stepan, Anisimov, Tatar, and Simmonds (just for you) will be missed.

So does Baertschi have a 10% chance to re-discover his game and reach a comparable level? I certainly don't know but I think it's possible and maybe even a bit higher. Hence why it's a gamble and not necessarily a bad one.

*Edit: Have to give you Raymond as I forgot about his Toronto season. Soderberg too though he's right at the margins.

 

[CanaFan]

Yikes messed that up. Raymond had two seasons over 40...Soderberg will most likely eclipse 40 this season, Simmonds should count as well.

Kulemin was close at 36 a second season. Hard to say a 30 goal 50+ season qualifies you as topping out as a tweener.

Not hard when your next best season is barely half the goals. I don't put much value in one-season wonders like Kulemin.

 

[Lundface*]

Hence why I stated "more than once". You can argue the criteria if you like but I don't see much value in a player who can't replicate a good season at least once. If you consider losing the chance to draft a Raymond-like player to be a significant risk then by all means adjust the %'s accordingly.

Simmonds was a legit miss b/c I set the range at 40-60 and edited the data accordingly. If the exercise is to remain objective (ie not simply adding a player after discovering he was cut off) then he shouldn't be included. But again add him if you like, along with the other 5 #61 picks that busted. The odds will bump up only slightly anyway.

Point is, no superstars will likely be missed, and a roughly 10-11% chance that a real good player a la Statsny, Lucic, Stepan, Anisimov, Tatar, and Simmonds (just for you) will be missed.

So does Baertschi have a 10% chance to re-discover his game and reach a comparable level? I certainly don't know but I think it's possible and maybe even a bit higher. Hence why it's a gamble and not necessarily a bad one.

*Edit: Have to give you Raymond as I forgot about his Toronto season.

Raymond fits your criteria.

Soderberg after this season fits your criteria.

Even a guy like Comeau would fit your criteria if he didn't miss time. 36 points in 60 some odd games and even this season he's on pace.

I do believe Baertschi can eclipse this criteria simply based on how the new management plays their acquisitions in prime minutes, whether they deserve them or not. I like Sven and I'd hope he can hit 40 points playing with the Sedins on the pp and Vrbata / Bonino at even strength.

 

[CanaFan]

Raymond fits your criteria.

Soderberg after this season fits your criteria.

Even a guy like Comeau would fit your criteria if he didn't miss time. 36 points in 60 some odd games and even this season he's on pace.

I do believe Baertschi can eclipse this criteria simply based on how the new management plays their acquisitions in prime minutes, whether they deserve them or not. I like Sven and I'd hope he can hit 40 points playing with the Sedins on the pp and Vrbata / Bonino at even strength.

Not sure he even needs the benefit of that cushy PP time considering he already has a better 5v5 pts/60 than Soderberg (1.78 to 1.60) and isn't far behind Raymond (1.92) despite his inability to crack the Flames full-time roster.

 

[Wilch]

So I wanted to revisit the success rates of mid-range 2nd rounders to see just what the 'risk' is in the Baertschi trade. Figured the easiest way to do this is go back through recent drafts and look at the quality of players picked in the range that the Vancouver pick is likely to be this year. Given that we are hovering around the 18-20 mark, I went with picks between #40 (10 before ours) and #60 (10 after ours). I also looked at the drafts between 2004 and 2009. I stopped at 2003 since that is a well known 'abberation' draft in terms of the unusual quality and depth, which is not likely to be seen in 2015. I also stopped at 2009 since most 2nd rounders taken in 2010 or later are still too young to have really established themselves. I also focused forwards only, since it makes the comparison to Baertschi a bit easier.

So from 2004-2009 there were 73 forwards drafted in that range. I tallied up the players, applied some subjective ratings to their 'quality', and came up with the following odds:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of drafting a 'Star' Player (major award winner, All Star, etc):

0/73 (0.00%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Top Line' Player (60+ points or 25+ goals more than one time, or seem likely to hit these levels based on play so far):

4/73 (5.5%)
Includes: Paul Statsny (44), Milan Lucic (50), Derek Stepan (51), Tomas Tatar (60)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Top 6' Player (40+ points or 20+ goals more than one time)

3/73 (4.1%)
Includes Artem Anisimov (54), Brandon Dubinsky (60), and David Booth (53)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Tweener/Bottom 6' Player (regular NHL career for at least 3 seasons)

11/73 (15.1%)
Includes Mason Raymond, Nikolay Kulemin, Blake Comeau, Brandon Pirri,
Shawn Matthais, Bryan Bickell, Justin Abdelkader, Nick Spaling, Jimmy Hayes, Carl Soderberg, and Guillaume Latendresse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering that the guys listed as 'Tweener/Bottom 6' players are largely utility, role, or replacement level players, I would classify the harm of missing out on drafting one of them as negligible.

If we focus on the players that it would actually 'hurt' to miss out on, then we are talking about 7 forwards out of 73 picks or a 9.6% rate. In other words, there is roughly a 9.6% chance that our 2015 2nd round pick could turn into a player that could be a regular top 6 forward and score at least two seasons of 20+ goals or 40+ points. The kind of player that if Calgary drafts with our pick, I could easily say "damn, that one hurts".

So when we look at the pedigree and history of Baertschi, do we see a player who has less than a 10% chance to become an equivalent type of player? Obviously it will depend on your view of Baertschi, including his strengths and flaws as well as the reasons Calgary was willing to give him up for a 2nd. For me personally, I feel that there is probably a better than 10% chance that he can still become a decent top 6 forward using the same criteria I used for the draft picks. Thus for me it seems like a good trade with a reasonable chance of it outperforming the cost.

Taking age into consideration, I'd kick Soderberg up a level. More or less, you're looking at a 10~15% risk.

But that's only looking at forwards, because giving away the 2nd could be giving away a defenseman or a goalie as well.

I think it's only fair to add D/G to your analysis as well.

Otherwise, appreciate you taking your time to do this.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Taking age into consideration, I'd kick Soderberg up a level. More or less, you're looking at a 10~15% risk.

But that's only looking at forwards, because giving away the 2nd could be giving away a defenseman or a goalie as well.

I think it's only fair to add D/G to your analysis as well.

Otherwise, appreciate you taking your time to do this.

Well, it really only matters if D and G are at a higher success rate than F, which I am doubtful of.

Frankly, though, I bet an analysis of forwards in a similar position to Baertschi development-wise finds a surprisingly low success rate, and this analysis is incomplete without that information.

 

[CanaFan]

Taking age into consideration, I'd kick Soderberg up a level. More or less, you're looking at a 10~15% risk.

But that's only looking at forwards, because giving away the 2nd could be giving away a defenseman or a goalie as well.

I think it's only fair to add D/G to your analysis as well.

Otherwise, appreciate you taking your time to do this.

I agree on the inclusion of the D in principal however it becomes problematic to find a obvious cut-off point for a 'successful' D. How would you classify Dmitri Orlov in Washington or Eric Gelinas in NJ? It is easier with the forwards since I can use Baertschi's 'expected' performance as a guide. Besides, by excluding the D I am reducing the base that the % is calculated from. Assuming D turn out at roughly the same rate as forwards then the overall rate remains the same.

Of course if someone better at assessing D wants to take this on I'd be happy to add it to the calculations.

*Edit: Fair point on Soderberg, I'll bump him up in future posts.

 

[CanaFan]

Well, it really only matters if D and G are at a higher success rate than F, which I am doubtful of.

Frankly, though, I bet an analysis of forwards in a similar position to Baertschi development-wise finds a surprisingly low success rate, and this analysis is incomplete without that information.

Well that is the crux and I'm not even sure how to find enough comparables to get a reliable estimate. It was more to quantify the success on the draft pick so that people can judge at least half of the trade somewhat accurately even if the other half (Baertschi) remains a bit of a mystery box.

 

[Pip]

Wrong, wrong and wronger.

Gillis screwed up the Luongo situation.

You mention how Luongo had an "awful contract."

Who signed him to that deal?

You mention that Luongo had only 1 team on his list. That is BS. According to Dan Murphy, Luongo had multiple teams on his list for over a whole calendar year.

The teams included were Florida, Tampa, Toronto and maybe others.

If Gillis had not signed him to that "awful" and unmovable contract, he would have dealt him.

By the end, Luongo was so pissed off from this jerking around, as well as being told he was the guy from Gillis' new coach, that he said screw it, and painted the Canucks in a corner, after almost 18 months of Gillis fumbling the ball.

As for those trades...Hodgson could have yielded a greater return than Kassian, although the jury is still out and it could become a steal.

Ehrhoff was a deft move to swindle a team close to the cap.

Schneider was a good trade in hindsight because Horvat has turned out. However, as you mentioned, Luongo was saddled with "poor play" and a horrible contract so one wonders why Gillis chose him over Schneider. Had that been Jensen, Schroeder or Gaunce instead of Horvat in that deal, it would have been a disaster.


As for:

Ballard trade
Booth trade


Both failures. Booth was a horrible one year wonder.

Ballard was a 4.2 million dollar 7th or 8th d-man.

Without the 8 point something of cap room these guys took up...I believe the Canucks could have had more room to do more with their NTC guys in their prime.

Hilariously wrong

 

[Wilch]

I agree on the inclusion of the D in principal however it becomes problematic to find a obvious cut-off point for a 'successful' D. How would you classify Dmitri Orlov in Washington or Eric Gelinas in NJ? It is easier with the forwards since I can use Baertschi's 'expected' performance as a guide. Besides, by excluding the D I am reducing the base that the % is calculated from. Assuming D turn out at roughly the same rate as forwards then the overall rate remains the same.

Of course if someone better at assessing D wants to take this on I'd be happy to add it to the calculations.

*Edit: Fair point on Soderberg, I'll bump him up in future posts.

For D, I'd go with ATOI. If they're top 6 on the team in that category, they are likely at least rotating between the 3rd and 2nd pairing.

The best way is probably doing it by hand since your sample size isn't immense. ATOI can capture quite a few contributors, but may miss out on valuable prospects with good potential.

Generally, if you were the GM and the player in question is not someone you'd move for anything less than a 1st round pick, they should be added to the hit rather than miss category.

 

[Skriko]

So Bärtschi has now 18 points in 20 games after christmas in AHL. Is he worth 2:nd round? I don't know, but i like this gamble when i look Canucks draft history.

 

[Wilch]

So Bärtschi has now 18 points in 20 games after christmas in AHL. Is he worth 2:nd round? I don't know, but i like this gamble when i look Canucks draft history.

Pretty hard to churn out prospects from the 2nd round when half of them has been traded in the last decade or so.

 

[Lundface*]

Hence why I stated "more than once". You can argue the criteria if you like but I don't see much value in a player who can't replicate a good season at least once. If you consider losing the chance to draft a Raymond-like player to be a significant risk then by all means adjust the %'s accordingly.

Simmonds was a legit miss b/c I set the range at 40-60 and edited the data accordingly. If the exercise is to remain objective (ie not simply adding a player after discovering he was cut off) then he shouldn't be included. But again add him if you like, along with the other 5 #61 picks that busted. The odds will bump up only slightly anyway.

Point is, no superstars will likely be missed, and a roughly 10-11% chance that a real good player a la Statsny, Lucic, Stepan, Anisimov, Tatar, and Simmonds (just for you) will be missed.

So does Baertschi have a 10% chance to re-discover his game and reach a comparable level? I certainly don't know but I think it's possible and maybe even a bit higher. Hence why it's a gamble and not necessarily a bad one.

*Edit: Have to give you Raymond as I forgot about his Toronto season.

Raymond fits your criteria.

Soderberg after this season fits your criteria.

Even a guy like Comeau would fit your criteria if he didn't miss time. 36 points in 60 some odd games and even this season he's on pace.

I do believe Baertschi can eclipse this criteria simply based on how the new management plays their acquisitions in prime minutes, whether they deserve them or not. I like Sven and I'd hope he can hit 40 points playing with the Sedins on the pp and Vrbata / Bonino at even strength.

 

[me2]

I'm not sure why you would kick out 2003, 2002, etc. Once you start excluding data that does not meet your hypothesis all. I don't think you can skip D or G either, you don't have to draft a forward.

 

[Skriko]

Pretty hard to churn out prospects from the 2nd round when half of them has been traded in the last decade or so.

Yeah, that's true. But when Canucks have drafted 2:nd rounds, they have drafted players like Alexandre Mallet, Taylor Ellington and Yann Sauve. I like Demko though, so maybe they are getting more good picks in future with Benning/Crawford?

 

[me2]

So Bärtschi has now 18 points in 20 games after christmas in AHL. Is he worth 2:nd round? I don't know, but i like this gamble when i look Canucks draft history.

I like it a whole lot more than Vey. Canucks draft history doesn't come in to it with a specialist scouting GM (he's been a better scout than GM so far) the past history means nothing, clean slate.

 

[me2]

Yeah, that's true. But when Canucks have drafted 2:nd rounds, they have drafted players like Alexandre Mallet, Taylor Ellington and Yann Sauve. I like Demko though, so maybe they are getting more good picks in future with Benning/Crawford?

Demko was a mid-earlier 30s pick and it is a spot I want Benning to target in trades, a sweet spot in the draft in terms of returns to cost of pick, but he's going to need to get some 2nd back and use those as a base to trade up.

 

[Wilch]

Yeah, that's true. But when Canucks have drafted 2:nd rounds, they have drafted players like Alexandre Mallet, Taylor Ellington and Yann Sauve. I like Demko though, so maybe they are getting more good picks in future with Benning/Crawford?

Chicago made 2 piss poor picks and 1 mediocre pick (Clendening) before snatching up Saad with their 4 pick in the top 2 rounds.

We only need to hit the jackpot once with the 6 picks we didn't trade away.

We may have actually hit one with Demko.

 

[arsmaster*]

I just think 2nd rounders are high currency. You can probably get a better NHL player for a 2nd not a prospect who has to be pencilled into your lineup in September or he's gone. JMO.

Canafan did some nice work but I care less about owning the pick than I do having that currency at the draft.

I see upside to baertschi don't get me wrong just still don't understand why now and why so much.

 

[Wilch]

I just think 2nd rounders are high currency. You can probably get a better NHL player for a 2nd not a prospect who has to be pencilled into your lineup in September or he's gone. JMO.

Canafan did some nice work but I care less about owning the pick than I do having that currency at the draft.

I see upside to baertschi don't get me wrong just still don't understand why now and why so much.

His fair value is probably between a 3rd and a 4th.

The late 2nd is the division rival premium.

 

[Diamonddog01]

So I wanted to revisit the success rates of mid-range 2nd rounders to see just what the 'risk' is in the Baertschi trade. Figured the easiest way to do this is go back through recent drafts and look at the quality of players picked in the range that the Vancouver pick is likely to be this year. Given that we are hovering around the 18-20 mark, I went with picks between #40 (10 before ours) and #60 (10 after ours). I also looked at the drafts between 2004 and 2009. I stopped at 2003 since that is a well known 'abberation' draft in terms of the unusual quality and depth, which is not likely to be seen in 2015. I also stopped at 2009 since most 2nd rounders taken in 2010 or later are still too young to have really established themselves. I also focused forwards only, since it makes the comparison to Baertschi a bit easier.

So from 2004-2009 there were 73 forwards drafted in that range. I tallied up the players, applied some subjective ratings to their 'quality', and came up with the following odds:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of drafting a 'Star' Player (major award winner, All Star, etc):

0/73 (0.00%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Top Line' Player (60+ points or 25+ goals more than one time, or seem likely to hit these levels based on play so far):

4/73 (5.5%)
Includes: Paul Statsny (44), Milan Lucic (50), Derek Stepan (51), Tomas Tatar (60)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Top 6' Player (40+ points or 20+ goals more than one time)

3/73 (4.1%)
Includes Artem Anisimov (54), Brandon Dubinsky (60), and David Booth (53)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% of drafting a 'Tweener/Bottom 6' Player (regular NHL career for at least 3 seasons)

11/73 (15.1%)
Includes Mason Raymond, Nikolay Kulemin, Blake Comeau, Brandon Pirri,
Shawn Matthais, Bryan Bickell, Justin Abdelkader, Nick Spaling, Jimmy Hayes, Carl Soderberg, and Guillaume Latendresse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering that the guys listed as 'Tweener/Bottom 6' players are largely utility, role, or replacement level players, I would classify the harm of missing out on drafting one of them as negligible.

If we focus on the players that it would actually 'hurt' to miss out on, then we are talking about 7 forwards out of 73 picks or a 9.6% rate. In other words, there is roughly a 9.6% chance that our 2015 2nd round pick could turn into a player that could be a regular top 6 forward and score at least two seasons of 20+ goals or 40+ points. The kind of player that if Calgary drafts with our pick, I could easily say "damn, that one hurts".

So when we look at the pedigree and history of Baertschi, do we see a player who has less than a 10% chance to become an equivalent type of player? Obviously it will depend on your view of Baertschi, including his strengths and flaws as well as the reasons Calgary was willing to give him up for a 2nd. For me personally, I feel that there is probably a better than 10% chance that he can still become a decent top 6 forward using the same criteria I used for the draft picks. Thus for me it seems like a good trade with a reasonable chance of it outperforming the cost.

This is an oustanding post. Very logical, objective and most importantly - factual. Most of this thread is just opinion, nice to see someone actually form a well-thought argument and back it up with facts and statistical data.

I certainly feel Baertschi has more than a 10% of becoming a 2nd liner.

 

[Pip]

This is an oustanding post. Very logical, objective and most importantly - factual. Most of this thread is just opinion, nice to see someone actually form a well-thought argument and back it up with facts and statistical data.

I certainly feel Baertschi has more than a 10% of becoming a 2nd liner.

But it all comes down to whether or not you believe he has a better than 10% chance of becoming a top 6 forward. I don't think it's a sure thing. Guys who stagnate/regress as a player after their first pro year rarely work out.

I sincerely hope he does work out and I'm glad that he got off to a good start in Utica, but I feel that a lot of the Baertschi hype is because he was a really good prospect a few years ago.